Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Arthur Leonard on Maryland Ruling

Well, Arthur S. Leonard did come through for us all with his fast, yet thorough analysis of the Maryland Court of Appeals decision upholding DOMA wording in state law.

The court could have gone in favor of marriage equality with a vote switch on the 4 to 3 decision. The dissents and partial dissents show the subtle shifts. Yet, this is mainstream judicial thinking reflected on other states recently. In contrast to the winger stereotype of activist courts and judges eager to make law, this decision showed the deeply ingrained fear of appearing to make law in doing their jobs of interpreting it.

Leonard recaps the gist of the decision before hitting the main points in the various judges' opinions:
In a ruling sharply reminiscent of last year’s decision by the Washington State Supreme Court, which was similarly sharply divided, the Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, ruled by a vote of 5-2 on September 18 that the state’s denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples does not violate the Maryland constitution. By an even narrower vote, 4-3, the court also implicitly ruled that same-sex couples are not constitutionally entitled to the rights and benefits associated with marriage through some alternative arrangement, such as a civil union.
The progress to marriage equality is crawling, not bounding.

Tags: , , , , ,

Avast Ye Lubbers and Sea Dogs!


This be Talk Like a Pirate Day. Step lively and load your canon with pirate phrases!

Scurvy curs under the Golden Dome (arrr, gold) and merchant varmints purloin your purse all year...without raising the Jolly Roger in fair warning. Curses be on them!

Put in your largest earring and let there be swagger as you walk the decks at work.

Tags: ,

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Maryland — Back to You, Legislature

By one vote (four to three), Maryland's Court of Appeals said no to same-sex marriage. Rather, they denied a suit brought by 19 homosexual plaintiffs in December challenging the state statute defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Title two of the state law (2-201) on the subject reads simply "Valid Marriages Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State."

The report in the Baltimore Sun of today's decision includes that the ruling agreed with Assistant Attorney General Robert Zarnoch that any change in the 1973 law had to come from the legislature. This is in keeping with the majority of courts so far where the judges seem terrified of resolving conflicts between equal-rights laws and gender-specific codes.

The case got perking when town clerks around the state refused to issue SS licenses in 2004. Then a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge ruled that doing so violated the state constitution's equal-rights provisions.

The majority opinion author, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. stopped short of writing that couple had a duty to reproduce. Instead, he couched the decision with:
In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure ... our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex.
Interestingly enough, this is the opposite view of those who say this is not the legislature's business, like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He'd have the courts decide and vetoes marriage-equality laws.

Note: I have not looked into the 244-page decision. There are two detailed dissents, plus one multi-judge concur in part and dissent. With a bit of luck, the Leonard Link will get to this before the rest of us. He has a teaser up now.

The executive director of Equality Maryland, Dan Furmansky, called on the state's General Assembly to act, "to honor Maryland's tradition of tolerance and justice, and to strike down the ban on marriage for same-sex couples."

Tags: , , , , ,

Clueless Governors North and West

Maybe it's what a friend of my wife's family calls olds-timers disease, when you are forgetful and just don't get it anymore. Governors in Vermont and California seem to have caught it.

We had a pretty good idea that Arnold Schwarzenegger would veto the marriage bill on his desk, yet again. He iterated that in Sacrament yesterday. Seven years ago, a ballot proposition returned that the majority wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman. A lot has changed since, but wimpy Arnie continues to hide behind that, despite the legislature voting for marriage equality twice.

In picking which form of direction from the people he'll follow, he said, "It would be wrong for the people to vote for something and for me to then overturn it. So they can send this bill down as many times as they want, I won't do it." Here's another sad, strange little man stuck in a shameful past pattern.

Yet, here in New England, we have our own version. Our governor is for full equality, but not Jim Douglas just up Route 93. In running for re-election, he too has dug in his heels, saying that civil unions are far enough, pardner.

According to the Brattleboro Reformer, his fund-raising letter slams the push for same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, the state Commission on Family Recognition and Protection is studying SSM, held its first formal meeting last month, and will hold public hearings to find out what the locals think and want. Heavy hitters House Speaker Gaye Symington and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin head the group. The 11-members are supposed to report to the full legislature in April 2008.

Whether it is a power play with the lawmakers, anti-gay feelings surfacing or that old-timer's flaring, Douglas isn't even interested in hearing what the people want. He calls the whole commission "a distraction," and part of "a far-left agenda that is not in line with the real needs of working Vermont families."

The published rejoinder stands tall, with no need to augment it:
But Symington said Monday, "This is part of a pattern of the governor's consistently misrepresenting the work of the Legislature. It's taking an issue about minority civil rights and looking for an opportunity to create divisions and way overstating what Sen. Shumlin and I have done."

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Craig Gets a Big Wet One

I can't pretend that I haven't enjoyed ragging on barely-still-Senator Larry Craig recently, even as others and I have questioned the sting operations for soliciting sex, gay or otherwise. Well, apparently it's no joke to the ACLU.

He is yet another righty outlier getting help from the civil-rights folk. In his case, the national ACLU asserts the sting was unconstitutional, too broad and entrapment specifically. It filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Craig's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea bargain.

The arguments are specific to the Minnesota laws, including:
  • The disorderly conduct law Craig pleaded [609.72(1)(3)] to "is unconstitutionally overbroad." It "punishes 'offensive, obscene or abusive language' which reasonably tends to arouse 'alarm, anger or resentment' if the speaker knows or has reasonable grounds to know it will tend to 'alarm, anger or disturb' others."
  • It is overly broad as applied to sexual speech.
  • Even considered narrowly, this law may not apply here. The ACLU cites, "The Minnesota Supreme Court has already rules that two men engaged in sexual activity in a department store restroom with the stall door closed has a reasonable expectation of privacy."
  • The prosecution has to prove police weren't trying to entice to entrap.
The ACLU's press release puts the group in the camp that questions both motives and methods of the vice cops.
"If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works."
I have my doubt that this kind of support is what Craig will want in the end. It might be like in To Kill a Mocking Bird when Scout was rescued by Boo Radley, her former symbol of terror. It worked for her, but the ACLU for Craig...?

There is no sign that a substantial number of Senators of either party want to associate with Craig, much less defend him. He has kept his dubious activities in the public arena for a long, painful spell. Next week's request to withdraw will keep the spotlight on his circus ring. Now the number one liberal rights group is on his side. How much free speech can his reputation stand?

Tags: , , , , ,

Remedial Patrick Cartooning



Looks like Dan Wasserman should forage around for the matchbook and take some more drawing classes. The cartoonist provocateur did a terrible job, whether accidentally or intentionally, with Gov. Deval Patrick today.

Wasserman sketched a flabby, jowly sort of pre-stomach-operation Al Roker. Patrick in contrast actually has a rather chiseled face and is fairly trim.

Moreover, Wasserman went through a great deal of trouble to crosshatch the drawing for a variety of grays. Yet, he ended up with absurdly thick white lips on the governor. (It's good he labeled the image; perhaps he knew how little it resembled the subject.)

I'm certainly no artist and should not go on about it. I recall years ago having to bring in a pro to do the hands in some telecommunications manuals I was producing. I am terrible with fingers.

Yet, isn't it odd that well over a year from Patrick's candidacy and governorship that a local cartoonist can still publish what looks like a 1950 stereotype of a Black man. Perhaps they all look alike to Wasserman. I'd be willing to buy him a sketch pad and some pens to practice with for the next time.

Tags: , , , ,

Monday, September 17, 2007

Casinos Revivify Skeletor

Strange bedfellows is far too delicate a term for the ménage Gov. Deval Patrick has thrust onto the big mattress of gambling opposition. I fear that my prediction that Mass Family's Kris Mineau will slither away quickly may be delayed as a result. This could be a real good chance for fund raising for MFI.

Several local rags gathered casino opponents for target practice at Patrick yesterday. The Globe piece is a good recap.

Notably among the anti forces were MFI and the state League of Women Voters. Of course the highly unethical, situation ethics MFI played the morality card, and on tonight's WCVB Chronicle he had brief appearance claiming that gambling addiction would double statewide if there were three casinos. Meanwhile the LWV has its action alert calling for solid tax policy instead of blinking lights and booze.

A huge irony is that after the colossal defeat to the marriage-equality forces, MFI was gonzo. However, Patrick had been thwarted by the legislature at everything he proposed to fix our deficit and pay for progressive politics. He turned to gaming -- a solution I have also opposed as a resort, if you pardon the pun.

Now we have all the bluenoses, wingers, and assorted loons out for his hide. Plus the Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi is strongly against casinos.

It's not going to be a dull fall.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Insert bee, buzz, honey of pun here

I confess that it took me several weeks to get back to the honeybee story in my neighborhood, disguised as a light-blogging note. Over at Harrumph! there's a piece with a few pix on local hives and apiarist Mike Graney.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Married in MA, Pension in NY

Oo, creeping Massachusettsism...

The New York State decision related to Canadian same-sex married couples, but let's be provincial and put a Boston spin on it. Lambda Legal gets a double high five. It skunked the Dark Side's Alliance Defense Fund and got a widely applicable ruling on SSM and the state pension fund.

Don't you love it when the bad guys overreach and set precedent?

For a lesbian couple married in Canada, Peri Rainbow and Tamela Sloan, Lambda intervened in Godfrey v. Napoli. The same Court of Appeals in Albany that had ruled the state had the right to ban SSM, said it could not restrict state pensions because of that.

This never should have been an issue, except for the mean-spirited suit. In 2004, then state AG Eliot Spitzer backed up the state comptroller, Thomas D. Napoli, who had said that a legal marriage is a legal marriage as far as a pension is concerned. Some anti-gay sorts in Westchester County apparently figured to piggyback on the SSM decision and challenged extending retirement rights to Canadian SS couples. The new comptroller, Alan Hevesi, stepped right in and defended the call.

Judge Thomas J. McNamara wasn't swayed by the bad guys. He said the questions had nothing to do with each other. New York recognizes legal out-of-state marriages and the present AG and comptroller are right in supporting the previous decisions.

This is very Rhode Island-like in opening the window for marriage fairness and comity.

Evening Update: Leonard Link has the legal analysis, supporting the comity principles for foreign and Massachusetts SSM in the NY pension system.

Tags: , , , , ,

Santa Craig Keeps Giving



...and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.

So wrote Charles Dickens of the reformed and chastened Ebenezer Scrooge. Yet that character was but a harbinger of Santa Larry Craig. He literally cannot stop himself from doing many things — most public of those has recently been giving and giving to the Democratic Party.

Today, there are new wire and newspaper stories of his latest frivolities. You can get all you really need from the 9/11 and 9/7 items in the Washington Post Capitol Briefing.

That column details yesterday's development in trying to withdraw his guilty bargain in his toilet string. The best part is not that Craig is letting his darkened heart flutter with the joy of going before a different judge, not the one who accepted his plea, on September 26th. No, it is that if he can withdraw the plea, he will vigorously — and publicly — defend himself in a following public trial and before the Senate Ethics Committee.

At least the Hennepin County district courts require such chicken-scratch misdemeanor cases to go to trial within 60 days. The ethics version could be well into the winter.

What is this sad, strange little man thinking? Someone who likes him should tell him what the documents and witnesses already public point to and then describe what he could expect from questioning in both those venues.

The very best the Dems can hope for is for Craig to get his withdrawal and keep parading his ragged comedy before the public. If he manages to last his term, he'll be handing them their first U.S. Senate seat from Idaho since Frank Church in 1974.

Generous guy, this Santa Craig.

Update with Joke: New West/Boise news site wins the best line in this far-too-easy mess. Its coverage includes:
D.C. Republicans are white-hot with fury at Craig, a Senate staffer told NewWest.Net/Boise. "He’s like those trick birthday candles that won’t blow out," she said. "Of all the times for a Republican senator to break ranks and fall out of formation, this wasn’t a good choice."

Tags: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Hives and Zucchini Saturday

Those who aren't afraid of large squash, the inner city, or maybe even bees should head to a hidden garden in Mattapan Square Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Boston Natural Areas Network hosts its annual festival there. Details at Harrumph!

Santa Craig Visits Democratic Chimneys



What a generous man...stupid, dishonest, but generous. Infamous U.S. Senator from Idaho Larry Craig, Republican of course on all counts, keeps on giving to the Democratic Party.

Yesterday, he had his lawyer file an absurd and totally laughable motion to withdraw his guilty plea for shenanigans in a Minneapolis airport men's room. This was a gift within a gift, because doing so had two hidden gifts itself. First, it kept the lurid details and patently false denials in the public ear and eye, and second, it included not-widely-publicized aspects that what illustrate vividly what an unbelievable liar he is.

Note: The motion link opens up a manageable, 39-page PDF file.

Somebody Else's Fault

This was the lesser version — just another corrupt Republican Congressman — of imagining G.W. Bush snorting cocaine at a press conference. The filing does not strain credulity; it atomizes it.

To cut to the latest self-inflicted bleeder, Craig claims that he behaved like a toilet-trolling slut because he was afraid the local newspaper would claim (without basis, of course) that he was a toilet-trolling slut. That's the ticket. The Idaho Statesman made his do it. By investigating long-standing, rampant rumors of his bisexuality, it made his so anxious that when he was arrested for what looked and looks to everyone else in the sane universe like gay cruising that he pleaded guilty just to keep the paper from claiming he cruised.

That's right, boys and girls. He paid the fine and admitted guilt because he anticipated being falsely accused.

Let us pause for just a brief moment to ponder what manner of lower life form you would have to be to accept Craig's claim. Okay, now to the news.

Monday, September 10 AD 2007, Craig files a motion to withdraw plea-oral argument requested in Hennepin county Minnesota.

The introduction to Craig's latest filing recaps his incredible defense. He became aware that the Statesman's investigative reporters were thoroughly and carefully checking the long-standing reports of his homosexual activity, remarkable for a moralizing, anti-gay politician. The paper made no secret of checking with his friends, requesting his FBI files and going to gay cruising areas with his picture. In fact, the Statesman repeatedly sought Craig's responses and interpretations, as well as asking for interviews.

Chronic Panic

As the filing puts it:
Senator Craig has denied any allegations that he is a homosexual or has engaged in homosexual conduct...he willingly participated in a meeting with the investigating reporter in which he vehemently denied the allegations. That meeting, along with the underlying investigation weighed heavily on the Senator's mind. In fact, the Senator requested that the Statesman cease i& activities. but the Statesman continued its efforts. Based on these circumstances, however, the Senator had reason to believe that, without additional corroborating evidence, the Statesman would not publish these false and unproven allegations.

Shortly after Senator Craig's meeting with the Idaho Statesman, in June 2007, Senator
Craig was arrested and charged with interference with privacy and disorderly conduct, based on an arrest stemming from an undercover operation targeting gay men in a public men's restroom at the Minneapolis International Airport. Despite Senator Craig's denial of any inappropriate behavior, he was panicked that such allegations would be made public and that they would provide the Idaho Statesman with an excuse to publish its baseless article. While in this state of intense anxiety, Senator Craig felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer, namely that if he were to submit to an interview and plead guilty, then none of the officer's allegations would be made public. Thus, rather than seek legal advice from an attorney to assist him in publicly fighting these charges and potentially protract the issue, Senator Craig's panic drove him to accept a guilty plea, the terms of which offered him what he thought was a private, expeditious resolution of this matter.
The police report and interview are pretty damning. Craig's filing include those as Exhibits B and C, following his sparse, nothing-happened-in-there Exhibit A.

Craig has D.C. lawyers (William R. Margin and Kathleen H. Sinclair, of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP) and a local one (Thomas M. Kelly of Kelly & Jacobson). Martin specializes in white-collar criminals. He is splashy and his represented Monica Lewinsky, Chandra Levy's parents, Wesley Snipes (tax fraud) and numerous professional athletes. Sinclair is his junior, in litigation practice.

Post-capture or public disclosure, winger offenders tend to deny all, unless there is too much evidence. Consider the David Vitter/multiple-madam connections. That U.S. Senator, a Republican of course, from Louisiana, has never admitted anything, much less entered a plea bargain related to a morals charge.

What is the point at which a majority of these bluenoses' constituents tire of being lied to, of being made fools of, and constantly having to reset their own moral precepts to accommodate these clowns?

Well, fortunately for the Democratic Party, the hits keep on coming. Craig clearly has a politician's ego. If he cared for his party and its loosening Senate stranglehold, he would have said he was a distraction and worked with his governor to get the most politically similar appointee to replace him.

Instead, Santa Craig continues to fill the Democrats' stocking with his trinkets. Consider timing alone. He slunk back to Boise and told no one of arrest. He held the plea agreement for nearly two months before signing it and returning it with a check. Now, his filing would ask the court to believe that he acted in an irrational panic and did not have the time to seek an attorney's advice. Let us listen to the calendar pages turning as his panic state lasts week after week and he does not act.

Gay Stalking Horse

Craig is eager to blame his guilty plea bargain on the Statesman. Yet, he denies (that word again) any blowback from the GOP's anti-gay-rights/anti-gay-marriage politicking for the past two decades.

In a fine analysis, the Boston Globe's Peter Canellos points out this this is the petard that blew up under Craig. With no anti-Black card to play safely, Republicans and wingers have leveraged their anti-gay platforms with fair success and impunity. He notes:

Opposition to gay marriage, along with other forms of gay rights that emphasize the equality of gay and straight relationships, is a key point of connection between Republicans and voters who might otherwise oppose the GOP agenda.

In recent years, gay issues have functioned to help build a Republican coalition in a way similar to the role once played by race issues. In the '70s, '80s, and '90s, the national GOP came out strongly against programs to create special opportunities for racial minorities, thereby gaining substantial support among white social conservatives.

So now, here is Craig so invested in this combination of bigotry and expedience that he claims to have panicked (for two months) at the mere idea that a newspaper might quote the numerous sources about homosexual activities.

This would have been a great chance for an honorable person to recant. Even if he continued to feign about any specific extra-marital activities, he could have said that now he understands the irrational, emotional cruelty of anti-gay bias and prosecution.

Instead, from Craig, the Statesman investigating numerous reports of his toilet tricks becomes "a witch hunt." In contrast, Statesman editor and VP Vicki Gowler kept to the high road with her response:
The Statesman has taken great care in investigating these serious allegations about Sen. Craig. From the start, it was important to us to do a thorough and responsible investigation, outside of deadline pressures. We did that. Because of the allegations made last fall, a necessary part of a thorough investigation did include trying to determine whether the senator was regularly cruising restrooms for anonymous sex. The length of the investigation was due in large part to difficulties we encountered getting information from the senator.
I'm an old guy. So I recall not all that long ago when a man who didn't marry until he was almost 40 and then didn't father any children after he did would be presumed to be gay. Yet, even back when homosexual acts were illegal, that man would likely not have any problems, like feeling forced to resign public office...unless he acted out.

In contrast, we now have a man who apparently did act out in public repeatedly, all the while playing the anti-gay-rights knight. This suggests that our society could use a big leap forward, hopping over all this silliness.

Meanwhile, Craig's motion to withdraw his plea apparently is the best a great white-collar-crime litigator can do with the circumstances and facts. Unfortunately for both the GOP and Craig, the 39 pages show the wispy lace of defense he has to cover himself. You would be hard pressed to read it without concluding a range of facts both the party and Senator deny.

Craig's replacement may well be as conservative and anti-gay as he is. With the exception of Boise, Idaho is real short of blue politics and blue politicians. Yet nationwide, Santa Craig may be the best long-term gift the Dems get in the current election cycle. Ho ho.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Monday, September 10, 2007

Issues Beyond Larry Craig


Idaho's own Sisyphus, barely-still-Senator Larry Craig, has been condemned to carry his toilet association with him. Certainly, he has terrible and discriminatory politics, as well as being in a position to help implement them. Yet, beyond all his current dishonor, dishonesty and clumsiness, he has, if you pardon the expression, opened the door on police ethics and investigative techniques.

Now that his guilty plea to disorderly conduct has become known, Craig scrambles to withdraw that. Of course, were he to succeed, he would not begin to clear his name as the expression goes. Only the most doctrinaire could believe that he was doing anything other than trying to hookup for sex in a public place, a bathroom stall in a busy airport. The implications of that are largely a matter for him and his wife to create their own plea bargain and sentencing.

I believe that people would feel some sympathy or even empathy were he not so deeply into denial and delusion.

Almost certainly, his appointed replacement will share his politics. Idaho and the GOP right wing just loses some seniority.

Many of us who use phrases like victimless crimes and police entrapment kick around the collateral issues. A tip of the toupee to Mark over at QueerToday for a pointer to a great overview on these by Max Follmer in Huffington Post.

Meanwhile some righties have made absurd leaps. Some write that because it appears he was just trying to have sex with the cop, it shouldn't be a crime — they didn't actually have a public sex act. Others even write that he wasn't a hypocrite about homosexuality because he didn't ask the male cop to marry him while he has a strong anti-same-sex-marriage voting record, as though his discriminatory and mean-spirited votes were not anti-gay. Some say that cops should be finding terrorists instead, overlooking what vice cops are charged with doing.

Fortunately for us, the New York Times seem to have its own toilet reporters. They did, if you pardon, the dirty work of gathering background on the solicitation of gay sex sting operation at the Minneapolis airport johns. Among their facts is that there had been public complaints about this and follow-through activity in these restrooms, prompting the operation. Another is that in three months, the officers arrested 40 men in the sting. In other words, it was an issue and Craig was just another apparent cruiser caught in it.

The NYT includes a chart of what the 40 were arrested for, what they were prosecuted for, and what's happened with the cases through 9/5/7. The charges and number prosecuted on them are:
  • Interference with privacy — 14
  • Disorderly conduct — 10
  • Both of the above — only Craig
  • Loitering — 8
  • Indecent exposure — 4
  • Not yet charged — 3
The most serious of the offenses is interference with privacy, a gross misdemeanor by state law. Bathroom cruising was not the seeming purpose for the law, which was strengthened in 2005. Among the relevant sections of this carefully defined statue is:
(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window
2.2 or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in
2.3 section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place
2.4 where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy
2.5 and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts...
This law actually exists to counter those who might use hidden camera in women's restrooms and only recently was applied to such cases as Craig's. There are debatable aspects, but one that is not is that a reasonable person would expect privacy sitting on the can.

Yet, in our overly lawyered world, not everyone stung by this pays the fine as Craig did. The NYT reports that only 10 pleaded guilty. Another 28 chose a hearing. The other two cut deals that suspend prosecution and clear the record in a year of they are not similarly charged.

The Times reporter, Duff Wilson, spoke with some of the lawyers fighting these charges. The main assault of Jeffrey Dean, who is defending four of the men, is, "There can be no invasion of privacy of a person who is inviting the conduct. The undercover officer, by his on account, sits there in an adjacent stall and signals the person that he wants this contact."

Back to the reasonable person, I don't believe that person would interpret the arrest and questioning of Craig that way. Then again, that is up to a judge or judge and jury if it comes to that to decide.

Craig seems to have earned his double charge by his touching. He apparently played footsy under the stall to come on to the cop. He also seems to have put his hand under the stall repeatedly to advance the contact. Also previously, he was apparently peeking through the door of the stall where the cop sat.

With all that, we come to the political problems. Enforcement of this law centers on gay men in such stings. In addition, these stings did not advance to where those arrested tried to fellate the officers, and rarely had those arrested exposed themselves in their come-ons.

So, was the underlying offense soliciting sex in a pubic place when it did not get to the point of sex? Is this law too broadly applied and only against gay men? Are the decoy cops "causing" the men arrested to behave in illegal ways?

Private sex clubs are one kind of locale. Free public restrooms have different rules and expectations. It may be a thrill for some people of either gender to perform sex acts where they may be observed, caught or overheard. Yet, I think everywhere such public activities are illegal at the misdemeanor level.

We can certainly let Craig pretend that he is 100% heterosexual and that rubbing the foot of the cop under the stall partition was totally accidental, and that repeatedly putting his hand under that partition was in attempting to pick up paper from the stall floor. Again that is his and his wife's concern.

I do wonder though about the professional ethics of police officers sitting on toilets in case someone wants to hit on them, even in a restroom where public sex has occurred and people have complained about it. This would have much cleaner if an officer had simply walked into the stall to use it and someone actively and plainly requested a sex session. Likewise, if an officer entered a restroom and became aware of two men having sex in a stall, there is an obvious violation.

That is not exactly what happened and the lawyers apparently will try to make the most of it. According to the Huffington Post piece, that may be a hard sell in court:
Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, the gay and lesbian public advocacy law group, said that it is very difficult to prove entrapment because a defendant has to show that it was the undercover officer's idea to commit a crime, and it was something they were not ready and willing to do before the officer induced them.
We can certainly understand why someone who felt compelled to seek sexual contact in a public restroom would feel tricked and angry if the lust object turned out to be a cop. We hear the same complaint from men arrested for soliciting prostitution from undercover cops on the street. In these recent cases in contrast, there was no plain offer of money and foot and hand signals substituted for words and leering.

So, we remain wondering, is the intent of the Minneapolis-airport sting:
  1. To stop men from having sex in public areas
  2. To save people from being hit on in johns
  3. To make vice hits and look busy
  4. To entice the weak into acts that they normally would not do
There will decidedly be a spotlight on this and similar operations. Craig copped a plea and paid a fine, made a huge deal claiming both innocence and heterosexuality, made a huge deal of saying he'd resign, made a huge deal of saying he might not resign, and made a huge deal claiming he'd try to withdraw his guilty admission. He has focused attention on sex in public stalls, on the stigma still associated with homosexual activity in his circles, and on sex stings beyond prostitution.

Ass that he seems to be, he will likely continue force this issue and his role. It will be quite a distraction from all this if other men come forward claiming that he solicited and partook of sex with them. The key issues of what constitutes reasonable enforcement versus entrapment is enough to start with.

We can let the politicians and their party officials figure out, as churches have had to, what to do with moralizers who engage in adultery and other behavior they publicly decry. I don't really care, but it must be really tough to be a self-identified social conservative with such representatives.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Traditional Pizza Humor

Yes, yes, it's illogical, but click over to Live, Love, and Learn, where John will have you guffawing and nodding. His Defending Traditional Pizza is a splendid parody of the anti-gay/anti-same-sex-marriage crowd's argument.

I won't spoil it for you, but I promise lots of laughs in a splendidly tortured metaphor.

Anti-Equality Trolls Get New Name Tags

The anti-gay/anti-equality trolls will still take your money, but you'd have to write the check to a different name. In defeat, the Vote On Marriage haters recast themselves as the Coalition for Marriage and Family.

As VOM, they did their worst, while claiming that everything the good side did was immoral or illegal, while all their unethical and maybe illicit tricks were justified. Of course, it was the pro-same-sex-marriage and pro-same-sex-adoption people who were actually for marriage and for the welfare of the children and families.

The specious misnaming continues, but after their huge amendment defeat in June, the VOM arm of Mass Family Institute was reduced to sputtering, "Just you wait." The best they could come up with was an impotent threat to defeat the 11 legislators who saw the future in fairness and not in discrimination.

Note: I predicted that MFI head Kris Mineau is on his way out. I stand by that. He was useful as the key fund raiser. That ability has diminished manifold.

Last week's email blast shows the further lessened expectations. You can also see the no-longer-VOM goals on the renamed group's website. As they put it there:
Our five goals are simple . . .

Educate

We will let the citizens of Massachusetts, particularly those who attend church, know the real-life consequences of same-sex marriage, AND simple steps they can take to get involved in our battle, right in their communities.

Advocate
We will continue to let our grassroots know what issues impacting the family are currently being debated on Beacon Hill, and provide easy ways for them to contact their state representatives and senators.

Train
Our volunteers want to learn more about the nuts and bolts of how to effectively lobby their elected officials, how to run a campaign for public office, and how to organize their fellow parishioners to be more involved. We need to provide them with the expert tools and training to accomplish these goals.

Recruit
We will expand our base of volunteers, so when we are ready to begin another petition to restore traditional marriage, our army of grassroots supporters is larger than ever.

Elect
We can assist candidates who favor traditional values and provide the kind of support they need to win election. We need to turn the State House around and bring people with strength of character, who cannot be bribed or threatened, into public office.

If you agree with us that a strong grassroots pro-family movement is necessary to turn our state around, please volunteer and donate.

There's a trove of tiny gems there, including:
  • A promise of continued propaganda and lies, as in telling citizens "the real-life consequences of same-sex marriage." In the real world, of course, that would be that life goes on, with couples, their kids, whole families thriving. Then there is the MFI reality.
  • After getting out-lobbied, out-reasoned, and out-organized by MassEquality and its friends, the no-longer-VOM tries on the good guys' clothes. They claim to be a real grassroots organization with widespread voter support, able to convince lawmakers and run for office themselves. Clearly, saying and doing are very different.
  • The recruiting goal is particularly poignant. this renamed Coalition wants to "expand our base of volunteers (to have) an army of grassroots supporters..." That too would be MassEquality in real life. The day when it was okay to discriminate are past, as seen in the last elections and last ConCon.
  • They have also reframed themselves throughout their website as a primarily Catholic organization, instead of that broad, grassroots one in their goals. Check out their links and their call to become a rep for them in your own parish. Here's betting that Catholics who might have considered donating would rather give to a charity or project that helps people instead.
The goal set also includes a major shift. There is no more promise to defeat any of the 11 legislators who came to the pro-equality side. They failed even worse at trying to unseat pro-SSM lawmakers in the last election than they did in trying to gather a paltry 25% of the General Court to advance their amendment to stop SSM.

Now they say they want to elect reps and senators who "favor traditional values." They say they will "turn the state House around and bring people with strength of character, who cannot be bribed or threatened, into public office." That is, this group who was unable to defeat a single pro-equality candidate claims that it will, in effect, slowly replace over half the legislature. I guess they operate in geologic time.

The recurring theme seems to be that last phrase, "volunteer and donate." Lackaday for them, they jerked their supporters, including the local Roman Catholic clerics and prelates, around to the point of whiplash. It's going to be near impossible for them to get enough people to keep them in business, much less mount another petition drive. In addition, legislators are not stupid in a the main. They know people are sick of the vitriol, particularly when a trip with MFI and VOM led nowhere good.

Humiliation by association is not what politicians like or repeat.

This Coalition of a decreasing number of the befuddled and ill-meaning has vastly lowered its ambitions. Yet there is still a lot of bluster there. They have tasted defeat and they can smell the end. They just can't quite face reality.

Lapsed liberals, like Ray Flynn, and defeated legislators, like Marie Parente, were big supporters of the aims and tactics of VOM. The old group promised much, produced little and ultimately failed. The new version is the asthenic offspring with even less ability or attraction. Even VOM's old fart supporters must be too gun shy to align themselves with the watered down reincarnation.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Flowers for Firefighters



The funerals for the two Boston firefighters who died on the job provide perspective. We live when an injured cat is called a tragedy and someone who offers any help to a neighbor is called a hero. Instead, guys like Paul Cahill and Warren Payne deserve the hero label. They willing put their lives at risk whenever the bell rang to keep the rest of us safe.

Note: Click an image to see a slightly larger version.

As a Forest Hills Cemetery abutter, I am often there — it's my park. I visited the firefighters' plot and monument following the funerals. In the process of paying respects, I was surprised by some details I learned and the use of the flowers.

Perhaps most obvious was the artistic display at the base of the monument to firefighters. Someone had done an Andy Goldsworthy on the flowers. All around the base of the statue were arrangements sent with the casket, as one might expect. Then beyond each around surrounding the base was a starburst of white, long-stemmed flowers, carefully set out like so many rays from a stylized sun.

The metaphor seemed to be so many fallen firefighters as so many flowers on the ground. Yet, I couldn't find any citations for such symbolism for similar funerals.

However, a neighbor who works at the cemetery had a very plausible explanation. The FH director of operations, Mitch Zakrzewski, went to art school and is a prime mover in the modern sculpture in the cemetery. The staff knew that he has spent a lot of time in the morning before the ceremonies. It seems he was paying his own tribute to Cahill and Payne. If so, good on him.

Flowers were profuse at the monument and the freshly used plot. They covered the burial site and then after the ceremony surrounded it. One had a Boston Police sash. Many were ephemeral, like birds of paradise and quickly browning and shriveling in the 90-plus temperatures. Others such as the roses and orchids seemed to thrive.


Only Warren Payne's body rests at the firefighters' plot. The cemetery does not charge for firefighter burials there. Yet, the Cahill family had other concerns.

His body was cremated and the family will care for them by their own plans.

Hearing that a firefighter would choose cremation was quite a surprise to me. That seems to show equanimity in the constant presence of danger and possibility of sudden death that most of us cannot comprehend. Certainly a firefighter avoids burning to death, but after death there is no more reason not to create the body than there would be for any of us.

Perhaps too, it shows a refined sense of humor and acceptance of our shared fate.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 07, 2007

What is best in life, Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Conan the Bigot gets a new chance to surprise his troops and to choose liberty. Any bets?

Today for a second time, the California legislature, the elected bodies in a representative democracy, presented him with a same-sex marriage bill (AB43) passed by both houses. It is law in California, needing only Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature. Any bets?

According to the Sacramento Bee, Schwarzenegger pledged again to veto the passed bill. He has his seven-year-old ballot initiative (proposition 22) disapproving SSM. He doesn't need any more democracy than that! In fact, in February, he said there was no need to even think about laws on the subject, "because the people of California have voted on that issue."

Thinking can really hurt small brains.

In contrast, Assemblyman Mark Leno urged the governor to "rise above right-wing ideology, as he has on many other issues, by signing this bill." Any bets?

A few legislators have made it personal, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The first openly gay legislator there, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, said, "Marriage is more than just a civil contract ... it is different from domestic partners, it's just different from civil unions - it means something. And because it means something, that's why it's been denied to us."

The Assembly voted for the bill 42 to 34 and the Senate 22 to 15. Schwarzenegger has a month to sign or veto it. A veto override requires two thirds of both houses, which are clearly not there.

So far, Schwarzenegger has been a typical Republican of the current type. He talks freedom but spits on liberties.

As MassEquality's Marc Solomon said on our Left Ahead! podcast this week about this very subject, "
He’s a wimp. You can tell him I said so…I’d put Deval (Patrick) up against Schwarzenegger in an action movie any day."

Arnie needs some 'nads. I don't know that he'll grow any in the next few weeks.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Hazing the BPS Parents

Pamplona has its festival, as does Boston. Somewhat like the running of the bulls, the regular hazing of the Boston Public School families continues. A big difference of course is that the buffoons who risk goring by half-ton animals do so by choice.

As a fervent believer in public education, I have endured and largely bested the worst school and School Committee officials have thrown at me. My oldest went through and I have a senior and ninth grader. Through moving to be in the right districts in the old days, visits and other research, and every technique we could use, we have found the good schools among the detritus here and ended up with three kids in advanced work classes and exam schools getting an education at least as good as prep schools'.

Many parents were not so dogged, savvy or perhaps lucky.

Making It Hard

In the process, we benefited from the foolish parents who take their walk-zone schools over vastly superior ones. There are huge discrepancies from one school to the next.

We enjoyed the theater of a purple-faced screeching Michael Contompasis when he was Boston Latin School headmaster, and of the pretentious, luxury-store-bag displaying, foot-stomping Cornelia Kelley who followed him. Also, we almost always failed to get information from the School Committee in person or on the phone. If we saw or spoke to someone at all, each person seemed to make up the answers, which were generally incorrect.

There were a few boy-hating teachers and some that weren't all that bright, but most schools have those. Yet, comparing notes with parents elsewhere, we conclude that Boston is better at discomforting and inconveniencing parents.

After that prolonged wail, the proper response is, "It should not be that hard."

Indeed, considering Horace Mann's ideal of public education as the great equalizer, we are still waiting and working for that. We still see far too many mediocre minds leapfrogging into management and leadership by connections from their rich kids' schooling. The ideal of a meritocracy remains distant as the brightest work for the feeble far too often. Such is our hidden hereditary aristocracy.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Buses!

Back to the hazing, today let us consider the inelegant dance that one must perform for school transit. Over the past two weeks, we have experienced many variations on the I-don't-know or I-can't-be-bothered. It shouldn't be that hard.

The script includes:
  • Our youngest is a ninth grader at Boston Latin Academy.
  • For the past two years, a yellow bus generally stopped sort of in the neighborhood to take him. At just 14, he is supposed to find his own way and get a T pass to do so.
  • Our "***OFFICIAL RANSPORATION NOTIFICATION***" read that kids were supposed to find their own way by T on the opening day and would get a student T pass that day.
  • It suggested using the MBTA site for a route. Plugging in the from and to addresses produced three routes, from 44 minutes to well over an hour, with three our four combinations of bus and train, and the train stops are two of the city's roughest and busiest -- Dudley and Jackson.
  • The transportation and school hot line numbers provided were constantly busy, likely with other parents being kept ignorant for their hazing.
  • Because my BLS student has the option of a special T bus to school, I figured BLA did. While that was true, between them, the T and BPS had not informed the inspectors at Forest Hills what day this would start and whether it would be from the upper or lower level.
  • Despite the best efforts of the school system to foil me, I did find a very helpful inspector at Forest Hills, who gave me enough information about how it worked the last school year. My youngest and I showed up at the right time and by keeping checking top and bottom eventually connected with the bus (lower level, berth 8, 6:47 a.m.).
  • He came home yesterday without a T pass. I drove him to BLA this morning, located the bus dispatcher there and found that his homeroom teacher had neglected to hand them out. I had to apologize to my son, because I had assumed that he, not the teacher, was not paying attention.
It shouldn't be that hard, and this is the simple stuff.

When I was dealing in person with the Forest Hills crew, I found several helpful and nice inspectors. Two even said what I was thinking. BLA is a good school with smart people. The BPS transportation department has lots of computing power and access to maps and routing information. You'd think that together, they would reflect useful reality on their **OFFICIAL TRANSPORTATION NOTIFICATION***.

Bad Old Days

Even with the yellow bus for the past two years, we were kept alert and scrambling by the school's transportation department. They were unable and unwilling to be consistent in the pickup spot.

I won't even get into the stop choices. The bus passed less than half a block from our house, but the kids had to walk a half mile to the designated stop. Numerous other yellow buses stopped at the foot of our hill, but they couldn't set our bus' stop there for our then 12-year-old. I didn't mind the half mile walk for him and me, but the illogic was troublesome.

The printout we got read that the bus would pick up children on Hyde Park Avenue below Walk Hill Street. Instead, from the first day, the normal pickup stop was on Walk Hill east of Hyde Park.

The fronts of the buses at one of these stops are not visible from the other. There are dozens of buses that come to these corners in a very short time. In addition, if a child were to stand on the corner, ready to run to the right location, it would be across four lanes of traffic at the intersection, almost always with no cross signal and constant cars from several directions.

The fun came two ways. First, if the driver was off, the substitute kept to the original route, stopping at Hyde Park. Of course, you had no way of knowing in advance when there would be a substitute driver. Second, the school transit folk make ordinary bureaucrats look like freethinkers.

Calls and discussions took many times to get through, and then in a real sense you never got through. The folk on the other end would locate and recite the route as though what was on paper had to be reality...repeatedly. When pressed that the driver decided that Walk Hill was quicker, safer and more efficient (I agree), the bus guys wanted to get written permission from the parents involved to "change" where the bus stopped.

The logic that they needed to change the route in the computer so that substitutes would come to the regular stop was impossible for them to comprehend. The fact that all the parents already sent their kids to Walk Hill was irrelevant to them. The other alternative of having the bus stop on the northern side of Hyde Park, where some other school buses stop and where kids on Walk Hill could see the bus and the driver could see them was deemed too difficult too.

Through the two years, reality remained what was on their route sheet, regardless of the corporal and vehicular world. I kept hoping to find a reasonable problem solver there. I suspect if any ever worked for the school transportation department, it was a short tenure.

The effect was numerous mornings when no bus appeared on Walk Hill. The transportation folk suggested that if a driver came to an empty bus stop that should have eight kids, he should look after crossing Walk Hill to see if they are there. That never happened.

Each year, numerous mornings brought a call from a kid with a cell phone saying that the bus didn't show yet again. There were seven such times last year. We would drive kids the two and one-half miles to school. Sometimes I felt quixotic and would discuss it with the bus dispatcher at BLA. He'd complain for me, but there would be no change from his pressure either.

Relief in Sight

There are four more years of BPS. I shall then have finished my duty in support of my belief in public education. It is occasionally (after the fact) amusing to have hundreds of tales of incompetence and indifference or worse after three kids in BPS. In fact, it makes me wish that such hazing was malicious, not stupid. The people running the BPS shouldn't be dummies.

New Superintendent Carol Johnson has just started. She makes squishy promises about better education in schools. Maybe it's too early to let her know that the hazing rituals parents suffer every year cause a hell of a lot of anxiety and inconvenience. I hope the pod people inside the School Committee building don't take over her body and make her one of them.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Gawking on Bumpkin

To those who knew I was headed to last weekend's Art Encampment on Bumpkin Island, I didn't neglect it. However, I didn't tell folk any coverage would end up on the non-political Harrumph! blog.

There's a little snark, a little insight and a few pix over there on City Slickers Art Up Bumpkin.

Larry Craig Honks His Nose


Amoral politicians seem to have done advanced work in belaboring the obvious. However, they seldom can see what is personally obvious.

David over at BMG called Sen. Larry Craig's hedging on resigning "too hilarious." The full story, as detailed in Craig's local paper, the Idaho Statesman, transcends that:
  • He thinks that his equivocating press conference on his disgrace gives him the chance and maybe obligation to stay in the Senate.
  • He's going to hold to his fantasy that he was "railroaded."
  • He accidentally left a voice mail on a stranger's phone that describes his self-perceived cleverness in planning his fight to stay in D.C.
  • He clings to Sen. Arlen Specter's public support in a second fantasy that other Republicans may rally to him.
Sorry, kid, you're legislative roadkill. Your party has cement shoes already in the form of the President's failed policies. They aren't going to jump into the water and die in defense of a hypocritical liar.

I'd love to have a Bush-style phone tap on Craig's lines now. His caucus members must be shouting one after another for him to get the hell out of Washington and not take them down with him. When he finally realizes that they can and will expel him if he doesn't go, he may at long, long last get it.

Craig's words seem to have chiseled the epitaph on the current GOP -- PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY LIES BURIED HERE

Tags: , , , , , ,

Peeking into MassEquality's Playbook

Over at Left Ahead! yesterday, we had a good time with Marc Solomon. For our podcast, the Campaign Director of MassEquality reprised his what's-next role and more.

Here, I feel a much lesser version of the letdown following the defeat of the anti-marriage-equality amendment in June. For MassEquality, the same-sex-marriage issue is almost settled, although they are in the process of seeing how they can be useful here and elsewhere. Look for an announced strategy is coming months.

Meanwhile, they have not forgotten the 11 legislators who joined the good guys by switching votes, as well as the whole 75% plus one of the legislature. MassEquality and its members are working as volunteers and with contributions to ensure their reelection in the face of threats from the dwindling party of anti-gay/any-equality folk.

It's a wide-ranging podcast. Some of the highlights posted on Left Ahead! follow.

Solomon spoke of their strategy during the battle and what may be next for his organization. We also ranged on what local progressives can do now, to what may happen next in states with DOMA laws and amendments. He also confirmed our feeling that within a few years we may see marriage equality throughout New England.

Among the highlights are:
  • "There's no reason why every state in New England shouldn't have mull marriage equality within five years."
  • Legislators have seen the repercussions of voting for marriage equality, "where were none."
  • In California, marriage equality opponent and law vetoer Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — "He's a wimp. You can tell him I said so...I'd put Deval (Patrick) up against Schwarzenegger in an action movie any day."
  • Senate President Therese Murray was essential to the amendment defeat. She worked hard from the beginning. "She was very, very dedicated to making this outcome happen." Marc detailed his interactions with her.
  • Massachusetts had a great advantage in having marriage equality, something to defend rather than just trying to defeat a DOMA law or amendment.
  • MassEquality "asked our legislature legislative leaders to go out on a huge limb for us" and did not push immediately to overturn the 1913 laws forbidding out-of-state same-sex-couples from marrying here. Yet, Marc expects the legislature to get to repealing them at the end of this session or early next year.
  • He iterated that his group's prime goal was supporting all legislators who voted against the amendment, starting with the 11 who switched, but keeping all in office in light of anti-equality folk who pledged to defeat them. This includes volunteering and contributing to campaigns.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Slightly Bitter Grapes in 5th CD

Yes, yes, yes, Niki won and my guy lost. So there.

I dream of a progressive U.S. Congress. When you stop snorting and laughing, you can be aware of why I favored Jamie Eldridge.

We're not going to get that. Niki Tsongas topped the field yesterday and she's likely to 1) skunk her main challenger Republican Jim Ogonowski by a wide total in next month's special election and 2) be an adequate, but not inspired or inspiring Congresswoman.

For What It's Worth: For people who like patterns, symmetry and coincidence, the scuffle between two sympathy/name recognition candidates is very unusual. Niki Tsongas is the widow of beloved U.S. Rep and Senator Paul. Jim's brother was a pilot in one of the 9/11 planes flown into a World Trade Center Tower. Those themes are generally unspoken campaign ploys. She likes to pretend that she got experience by osmosis, even though she distanced herself from her husband's job when he was alive. Jim plays to the patriot base with his tenuous link too. She wins the name recognition factor, but both get emotional boosts. Their family ties won't decide the election though.

The Boston Globe reports that Niki won respectably, but not overwhelmingly, with nearly complete figures of:
  • 36% Niki Tsongas
  • 31% Eileen Donoghue
  • 14% Jamie Eldridge
  • 13% Barry Finegold
  • 6% James Miceli
I'm sure a G.W. Bush could claim a squeaker like that as a mandate, but the Lowell Sun kept its perspective. Its lead noted, "In a closer than expected finish, first-time office seeker Niki Tsongas held off Lowell's former Mayor Eileen Donoghue to win the Democratic Primary in the 5th Congressional District yesterday."

It was a very small turnout, maybe as low as 7% of voters, half the typical special election average. Donoghue won big in cities like Lowell (two to one) and Niki played best in the wealthy suburbs.

Donoghue ran impressively, clipping Tsongas' commanding lead with every poll. Conventional wisdom could see her winning based on her experience and positions if this race had run a typical Congressional campaign period instead of a shortened replacement one. We'll have to see whether Donoghue is up to attack freshman Tsongas in the next general election.

I certainly prefer a wishy-washy, free-market liberal to a pretty conservative, war-supporting Republican. That to our shame would make her our first woman in Congress in 25 years. That's right; most pop stars were not even born then.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Ruinous Snickers

Clarity in scandal observation surely belongs to the British. While I have my qualms over police intrusiveness, I can't justify the simple-minded lying of the disgraced ex-Senator from Idaho Larry Craig. Over in the Financial Times, it took Gideon Rachman to put the buffoons and buffoonery in perspective.

In his It is the snigger factor that sees off an erring politician, Rachman distinguishes between the survivable blunders and the Craig moments. I don't know that the Brits have had more sex, murder and other scandals than we, but they certainly seem to relish them in greater detail.

Consider such players as:
  • Larry Craig — caught in a public restroom obviously to all but himself making repeated overt requests for sex. He is married with kids, denies homosexuality or bisexuality, pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge in an attempt to keep this secret, and may be stupid enough to challenge the bust, thus redisplaying his extraordinarily clumsy lies and deeds. He has been a regular gay basher and sponsor of legislation that would hinder or harm homosexuals.
  • Bill Clinton — arrogantly dancing around his adulterous fellatio and cigar moistening with a young woman. He is married with a daughter, lied openly and was impeached but not removed by a vindictive Republican Senate likely still smarting from the Richard Nixon disgrace.
  • David Vitter — the Louisiana Senator who was on the customer lists of prostitutes in his state and D.C. He has been a long-term blue nose and moralizer. He is married and allegedly the moral leader for their three daughters. He tried to deny all more than once since 1990.
  • Mark Oaten — an MP and leader of Britain's Liberal Democrats used male prostitutes, sometimes multiples simultaneously. He was married with two daughters. He tried claiming that he was under a lot of stress and feeling bad about going bald.
  • Ron Davies — the MP and Welsh Secretary managed to produce the most absurd lie, making Craig's I-was-picking-up-paper-from-the-john-floor one almost plausible. Despite photos showing him leaving a gay cruising wooded area, he first claimed not to have been there for 15 years and then that he was looking for badgers.

Does It Make You Laugh?

Rachman puts all this asininity in perspective with the simple test. While the French and Italians may yawn at sexual exploits by politicians, Americans and Brits generally do not. What causes the ruin of some and permits the survival of others seems to be how risible the details and defense are.

Put simply, neither Sen. David Vitter nor President W.J. Clinton lost all dignity. In contrast, badger watching and non-existent paper picking are instant and memorable jokes. Moreover, the always illogical and often delusional columnist Jeff Jacoby was one of several who strained mightily to pretend that Craig's hypocrisy was something else. There may be some brilliant essayist or orator who could manage that deceit, but the small brains at work recently do not have the skills.

Rachman, in far more mannered terminology, noted that lying about a blow job was not justification for removing a president. So Congressional Democrats ended up supporting Clinton. "But he survived politically because – despite all the excruciating details – he never totally lost his dignity. By the end it was his prosecutors and persecutors – with their monotonal, prurient questions – who came to seem rather odder than the president himself."

He added that Clinton was also already perceived as a womanizer. Unlike Vitter or Craig, he did not scold others while behaving in bad ways. Rachman added, "Politicians are often unusual people who have to pretend to be regular guys. When the gap between image and reality becomes too glaring, they begin to look ridiculous and political death follows. Senator Larry Craig is just the latest to learn this bitter lesson."

What causes the ouster of offenders is "the snigger factor – that seems to be the truly fatal element in any sex scandal.":
Lying, hypocrisy, even a little law-breaking – all of that can be survived. But when politicians lose their dignity, they are finished. Frequently, it is the small details of a scandal – and the bizarre little lies – that do the real damage. Mr Craig suffered more than Mr Vitter in large part because far more details of his indiscretion were revealed to a delighted public. Tapping your foot in a public lavatory will never seem safe again. Waving your hand under the cubicle was probably never a great idea.

Levels of Offense

Rachman notes the hierarchy of offenses that combine with the absurdity of defense all well. "Breaking a law is worse than breaking your marriage vows. Gay sex is more politically hazardous than the heterosexual variety. Brazening it out is better than lying."

Unfortunately for Craig, as a conservative, his peers and previous supporters at least feign horror at homosexual activity. In addition, he actually has a conviction of a crime as part of it. "And after admitting to his crime, Mr Craig’s later denials made him look daft and dishonest."

Craig was also naive enough to play the entrapment card with the arresting officer. Yet the details in his arrest transcript indicate that if he tries to overturn the guilty plea and conviction, he will become the clown in the center ring yet again.

It is difficult or impossible for those of us without the compulsion for anonymous sex in public places to understand that drive. On the one hand, it seems our police should not be interfering with consensual adult sexual activity. On the other, it doesn't take much sense to realize that overt sex in public is almost always against the law and just looking for all manner of trouble.

Yet it is the cover-up, the stupid, clumsy, arrogant cover-up that can undo a politician. Sometimes, the sheer absurdity of the details is enough to forever taint the offender. It was bad enough that Clinton quibbled over the definition of is. The paper-retrieving, badger-watching claims push moral lapses into memorable jokes. It might be time to construct a hall of shame for politicians who make themselves the punchlines.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 01, 2007

That Unique Iowa Marriage

The delightfully impatient Iowa pair of men who raced to marry following a judge's voiding of prohibition against same-sex marriage there. They are a oner. It seems that although 27 homosexual couples applied for marriage licenses and 19 received them, only Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan both paid the $5 to bypass the three-day wait and had their marriage solemnized in the few hours when it was possible.

A Cedar Rapids couple was foiled by driving distance, according to the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Gregory Mathis and his long-term partner Ravi Chandran hied to the Polk County Recorder's office. They arrived shortly after the judge stayed his order permitting SSM in Iowa in the late morning.

Mathis called the office to confirm they were issuing licenses to SS couples. Yet he was not too surprised when he could not get one that morning He said, "It's very disappointing, but I guess it's not new. In the 1970s I didn't get custody of my child because I'm gay. In the 1980s I was excommunicated from my church because I'm gay. I've had a lot of walls thrown up at me because I'm gay, this is just one more."

While two other couples got the exemption from the three-day wait, they did not get married in time.

Yet the prima facie standing of the one SS married couple in the state might well stand, regardless of what the Appeals Court or Supreme Court there eventually rule on any appeal. They certainly married in good faith and were issued their license with no deceit.

It reminds me of the failed attempt to stop SSM here in Massachusetts. Even the groups masquerading as "pro-family" when that's not what they mean at all knew that trying to void existing legal marriages would not pass muster in this nation at this time. The amendment they tried to pass here would have let legal SSMs stand.

In contrast, three years ago, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his officials to issue SS marriage licenses, he did so on his own. He did not have the legal standing to do so, and those marriages were not valid.

In addition, the Des Moines Register vetted the issue with Stephen Saunders, "a Chicago-based attorney for a group of historians and Iowa legal professors who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the lawsuit, (who) said judges usually avoid breaking up families when the members of the wedding party themselves have done nothing wrong. That means McQuillan and Fritz's marriage could survive intact, even if the Iowa Supreme Court eventually overturns Hanson's decision, he said."

Back in Iowa, the district judge, Scott Rosenberg, is taking heat for expediting the men's marriage. He and other judges routinely do the same for opposite-sex couples who ask and pay the nominal fee. Yet according to the Des Moines Register, the judge's evenhandedness displeases some anti-gay and anti-marriage-equality sorts.

Rosenberg said it would have been political only if he had told them to get lost. As he put it, "If I'm going to grant it for couples that are male and female, then why all the sudden should I change because a couple is the same sex?" Well, that didn't cut it for the Iowa Family Policy Center's president, Chuck Hurley, J.D. Fairly huffing himself into breathing trouble, he called the judge's courtesy, ""absolutely outrageous." "That's an affront to the legislators ... who established a three-day wait for a reason. I think that galls me as much or more than what Judge Hanson did because Judge Hanson obviously spent a lot of time writing his decision, not to say that I think what Judge Hanson did was right."

Pardon me while I rend my clothing in empathy with Chuck.

The lead editorial in the Register also was refreshingly sensible, particularly in light of the hyperventilating screaming we heard here in the amendment battle. It noted that Iowa's legislature had set itself up for this by having equality statutes, yet also passing a DOMA law without allowing for any alternative, such as civil unions.

The editorial's analysis of Judge Hanson's detailed and precise ruling is the best I've seen, including:
In defending the state marriage law, the defendant, Polk County - as the issuer of marriage licenses - relied on the standard arguments, but Hanson's opinion easily disposed of them: 1. Same-sex unions threaten the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. There was no evidence presented of that, he wrote. 2. The state's interest in heterosexual marriage is based on a desire to encourage procreation and raising children in households with mothers and fathers. There's an internal inconsistency with that, he found. After all, the state grants marriages to people who have no plans to raise children, and yet Iowa sanctions gay couples to adopt children and to become foster parents.

To show how the drive to outlaw same-sex marriage is on a collision course with the federal Constitution, Hanson cites language from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision striking down sodomy laws. As Justice Antonin Scalia points out, preserving the " 'traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the state's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."
Let us pause and snicker at the irony of Hanson citing anti-SSM Justice Scalia in the finding.

I have no doubt many of the 40-plus states who rushed to pass DOMA laws and related amendments are watching with nervous anticipation. Iowa may well go with SSM or civil unions as the sensible, legal and constitutional course. The anti-marriage-equality buffoons know that day is coming in their own states. They had figured it might be decades, and maybe when the current legislators had retired, when they had to pay for their emotional pandering. Yet, in the very sensible and middle-American Iowa the big issues may be on the table and in their faces very soon.

Tags: , , , , , ,